Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 FSUPP2D 1077 - Gutierrez v. Givens

Gutierrez v. Givens’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2018

5 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

120199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Calder v. Jones · Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Specific” jurisdiction exists if (1) the defendant has performed some act or consummated some transaction within the forum or otherwise purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the claim arises out of or results from the defendant’s forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.